We're going around in a circle in the sense that neither will change our viewpoint. I don't consider your argument to be compelling in any way. I think it's pretty clear, and any impartial hockey person will consider that trade to be among the worst in modern history.

Arguing which disasterous trade was worse is pointless. I will never consider trading futures that could have/probably would have gone another way had the Oilers kept them to be as bad as selling very low on a franchise player.

Click to expand...

You don't think the argument is compelling in any way because you (along with some of the others who take such an extreme stance) are so stubborn and stuck in your beliefs that this trade was an all time disaster that you refuse to acknowledge any other viewpoint so here we are I guess.

Yes, every impartial person considers this one of the worst trades in modern history..... until the Devils have a down stretch and the Oilers have a good stretch then they'll flip flop again like they always do.
I will give you and some of the others who haven't waivered on your stance credit (not that you need my credit) for sticking to your guns with your disdain for this trade but that was far from the general consensus this time last year.

I wish I could dig up old threads and articles from this time last year but I know they will be subsequently closed so I won't bother but I'll tell you one thing, you'd be amazed at how "ok" a lot of folks were with the trade last offseason, I'm including this board and the general media. It went from universally hated originally to universally tolerated to even liked to universally hated again all in a matter of 3 years. As is usually the case, team success or failure dictates what is or isn't a good trade/signing especially in this case where the two players took turns having a good and poor season.

The Oilers have an abundance of C depth. McDavid/Draisatil/Nuge/Strome. Khaira is a very solid 4C and Drake can centre a line in your bottom six. Love the relentless negativity though.

Click to expand...

Strome is an overpaid 3C, Kharia is a 4th line winger and Cagguila is a sub-replacement level NHL winger. The real strength of the Oilers C depth is the top three players in that list. If we had enough wingers to run them 1-2-3, we'd be laughing. As it is, we have to have one playing with 97 and that leaves the other to play with plugs.

If you are always looking at the glass half-empty you are never going to see positives. I thought Nuge was press ganged (whatever that means) to play as a winger. So even if JP is 'only' a second line winger why do you have to force Yamamoto in?

Click to expand...

Someone has to play top line RW and the options right now are Puljujarvi, Yamomoto and Rattie. Pick your poison.

So you criticize the team for rushing players (if that's what press ganged means) and then you criticize them for pursuing short term solutions so they don't have to rush a player. Damned if you do and damned if you don't in your world, eh?

Click to expand...

I was talking about the defence there.

The Oilers have fewer NMCs/NTCs than all but four teams in the league. Remember, you are using this as a platform to argue Chiarelli deserves to be fired. Do explain the plural?

Click to expand...

What on earth does that have to do with the fact that the contracts we'll need to move the most have NMCs/NTCs attached?

If Sekera is healthy he absolutley is worth his money. People whine about Russell's contract but he certainly earned his $4M last season. Looch is disappointing, but that's one contract.

Click to expand...

I like Sekera a ton and if he can get back to normal, that would be huge. I don't have high expectations in that regard given his age and injury. As for Russell he's a bottom pairing D man who is fine in that role, but grossly overpaid. Looch's contract is probably the worst of the bunch.

I approved the trade at the time. Then Chiarelli decided that we needed no talent on the wings and supplemented the trade with some truly bizarre and horrendous ideas.

Also approving the trade is not loving it. And Hall completely blew away the competition this year because his GM decided to have a chat with him, something that was apparently beyond our GM. Almost as if people can change, imagine that.

Larsson was good last year. He wasn't this year. He can still get better... We hope.

This year was disastrous. Chiarelli made no effort to hedge his bets, wasted the last of McDavid's ELC year on crap, and now we enter years where the cap becomes stricter for us because he couldn't sign his two biggest prizes to lesser deals.

Everything Chiarelli did between now and last June was a failure. EVERYTHING.

Click to expand...

you said "I approved of the trade then and I can guarantee if it wasn't made the Oilers don't make the playoffs." thus you believed larsson > hall as far as team success.... and team success is all that matters.

you still don't get why hall changed... and why he wouldn't have changed if he stayed here. the trade was one step in causing the transformation. and really, are you all that confident this "change" will last.... maybe it will maybe it won't but it's like trying to convince fans or media that "ok, i know the oil had a good 2016-17 season, but let's not get carried away here... let's see what happens next year and the year after etc". same goes for hall's one good season.

You don't think the argument is compelling in any way because you (along with some of the others who take such an extreme stance) are so stubborn and stuck in your beliefs that this trade was an all time disaster that you refuse to acknowledge any other viewpoint so here we are I guess.

Yes, every impartial person considers this one of the worst trades in modern history..... until the Devils have a down stretch and the Oilers have a good stretch then they'll flip flop again like they always do.
I will give you and some of the others who haven't waivered on your stance credit (not that you need my credit) for sticking to your guns with your disdain for this trade but that was far from the general consensus this time last year.

I wish I could dig up old threads and articles from this time last year but I know they will be subsequently closed so I won't bother but I'll tell you one thing, you'd be amazed at how "ok" a lot of folks were with the trade last offseason, I'm including this board and the general media. It went from universally hated originally to universally tolerated to even liked to universally hated again all in a matter of 3 years. As is usually the case, team success or failure dictates what is or isn't a good trade/signing especially in this case where the two players took turns having a good and poor season.

Click to expand...

The problem is that Chiarelli doubled down on this trade with another terrible trade that didn't need to be done, leaving us with no scoring wingers whatsoever.

Part of the reason I was fine with the Hall/Larsson trade was because I knew we would have to suck down a bad trade sooner or later and with the Oilers rise that season we wouldn't have to keep stomaching bad trades.

you said "I approved of the trade then and I can guarantee if it wasn't made the Oilers don't make the playoffs." thus you believed larsson > hall as far as team success.... and team success is all that matters.

you still don't get why hall changed... and why he wouldn't have changed if he stayed here. the trade was one step in causing the transformation. and really, are you all that confident this "change" will last.... maybe it will maybe it won't but it's like trying to convince fans or media that "ok, i know the oil had a good 2016-17 season, but let's not get carried away here... let's see what happens next year and the year after etc". same goes for hall's one good season.

Click to expand...

I believe that defense was something we sorely needed. And we did.

But that defense wasn't good enough as 2017-18 showed. Talbot was the backbone of that 2016-17 season and when he collapsed the rest of the team went with him. We vastly overrated our defense because our goalie was making them look good.

After last season, 2016-17 looks like nothing more than one of those fluke seasons where everything goes right. And that's exactly what has to happen for the Oilers to succeed next season. No major injuries, no shoddy goaltending, no prolifically bad special teams...

Seems like a lot to ask of a team that has only one strength and many weaknesses.

But that defense wasn't good enough as 2017-18 showed. Talbot was the backbone of that 2016-17 season and when he collapsed the rest of the team went with him. We vastly overrated our defense because our goalie was making them look good.

After last season, 2016-17 looks like nothing more than one of those fluke seasons where everything goes right. And that's exactly what has to happen for the Oilers to succeed next season. No major injuries, no shoddy goaltending, no prolifically bad special teams...

Seems like a lot to ask of a team that has only one strength and many weaknesses.

Click to expand...

so you're sure it wasn't the defence that made talbot look good in 16-17?.... ok.

i don't disagree, there was some aspects of "fluke" or luckiness in 2016-17 but they also played on a high. they came together and played for each other like we've never seen with the hall oilers. and part of the reason they came together was because of the ousting of one of the more hated players (hall).

so you're sure it wasn't the defence that made talbot look good in 16-17?.... ok.

i don't disagree, there was some aspects of "fluke" or luckiness in 2016-17 but they also played on a high. they came together and played for each other like we've never seen with the hall oilers. and part of the reason they came together was because of the ousting of one of the more hated players (hall).

The problem is that Chiarelli doubled down on this trade with another terrible trade that didn't need to be done, leaving us with no scoring wingers whatsoever.

Part of the reason I was fine with the Hall/Larsson trade was because I knew we would have to suck down a bad trade sooner or later and with the Oilers rise that season we wouldn't have to keep stomaching bad trades.

I was wrong.

Click to expand...

The other bad trades have little to do with the Hall/Larsson trade. The debate is about the Hall/Larsson trade in isolation, not the culmination of bad moves that led to a poor season.

I could understand lamenting the Lucic signing because that was a direct result of the Hall/Larsson trade but the others really didn't have anything to do with it so it shouldn't be judged based on the Eberle and Reinhart trades that followed and preceded. Out of the bad trades, the Hall/Larsson trade is the only one that makes sense IMO which is why I just don't see it as the disaster that others are portraying it to be.

The other bad trades have little to do with the Hall/Larsson trade. The debate is about the Hall/Larsson trade in isolation, not the culmination of bad moves that led to a poor season.

I could understand lamenting the Lucic signing because that was a direct result of the Hall/Larsson trade but the others really didn't have anything to do with it so it shouldn't be judged based on the Eberle and Reinhart trades that followed and preceded. Out of the bad trades, the Hall/Larsson trade is the only one that makes sense IMO which is why I just don't see it as the disaster that others are portraying it to be.

Click to expand...

They might not have anything to do with the Hall trade on a larger scale but it's still a bunch of bad deals that make the others look worse.

If you trade Eberle for Strome OR Hall for Larsson, the deals aren't great but aren't exactly terrible either. But doing both makes me wonder what kind of plan the GM has.

Hall/Larsson wasn't necessarily a disaster at the time but subsequent trades/signings have made it worse. Chiarelli banked on Lucic replacing Hall's offense and Strome replacing Eberle's offense and needless to say neither has worked out at all.

If you want to see who Hall played against at 5v5 every year, you can start here. It's clear that Hall has seen a steady diet of top opposition since the day he came into the league.

here's what you said:

Nice backpedal attempt though.

Pts/60 2010-2016
Hall: 2.24
Kessel: 2.1

Click to expand...

well did hall not play with hischier and palmeri in the playoffs?

team canada doesn't make a point of leaving a player who "outplays" the other team's top players off the olympics or world cup. former teammates don't come out and say negative things about a player like this as well. you're numbers lie to you if they even actually correlate to anything substantial.

regained health? this year? sekera was an important piece and was playing horribly on one leg. the starch had been taken out of the team early on. like i said, one year, either way (positive in 2016-17 and negative in 2017-18), is not reason to get too high or too low on the team.

regained health? this year? sekera was an important piece and was playing horribly on one leg. the starch had been taken out of the team early on. like i said, one year, either way (positive in 2016-17 and negative in 2017-18), is not reason to get too high or too low on the team.

Click to expand...

You're right, but this stuff has been going on for years and over a decade. The one year we were good is an outlier of the OBC's reign.

And if Sekera was truly still not good enough to play (and he certainly didn't look like he was) then he shouldn't have been playing.

Yeah. But that wasn't the point you were making now was it? you were crediting Palimeri for Hall's success in this MVP-calibre season, but he actually spent as much time with a raw rookie (Brett) as Palimeri.

team canada doesn't make a point of leaving a player who "outplays" the other team's top players off the olympics or world cup.

Click to expand...

Well, it would appear that they do because that's what happened.

former teammates don't come out and say negative things about a player like this as well.

Click to expand...

It seems some of them do.

you're numbers lie to you if they even actually correlate to anything substantial.

Click to expand...

The numbers all support what I've been saying: that Hall is an elite forward who consistently outscored the opposition despite playing against some of the best players in the world. This may not jive with your narrative, but the evidence is there in black and white. Meanwhile every one of your claims-that Hall wasn't good, that he played against soft opp, that his teammates hated him-are either easily disproved through basic statistics or are dependent on heresay evidence, not hard facts.

You don't think the argument is compelling in any way because you (along with some of the others who take such an extreme stance) are so stubborn and stuck in your beliefs that this trade was an all time disaster that you refuse to acknowledge any other viewpoint so here we are I guess.

Click to expand...

I don't think I take an "extreme" stance on much of anything, really. I just don't see the arguments for that trade being very honest or rational at the moment.

How many conspiracy theories about Hall have been peddled in the name of taking the edge of that trade?

Yes, every impartial person considers this one of the worst trades in modern history..... until the Devils have a down stretch and the Oilers have a good stretch then they'll flip flop again like they always do.
I will give you and some of the others who haven't waivered on your stance credit (not that you need my credit) for sticking to your guns with your disdain for this trade but that was far from the general consensus this time last year.

I wish I could dig up old threads and articles from this time last year but I know they will be subsequently closed so I won't bother but I'll tell you one thing, you'd be amazed at how "ok" a lot of folks were with the trade last offseason, I'm including this board and the general media. It went from universally hated originally to universally tolerated to even liked to universally hated again all in a matter of 3 years. As is usually the case, team success or failure dictates what is or isn't a good trade/signing especially in this case where the two players took turns having a good and poor season.

Click to expand...

I believe there is a world of difference between accepting a trade was ultimately worth losing and believing the trade was good.

Obviously anything the Oilers do poorly will be less important if they are winning in spite of it. But as we're sitting right now, the Oilers traded a prime-aged, star forward on a great contract who wanted to be here for a second pairing defenseman.

The problem is that Chiarelli doubled down on this trade with another terrible trade that didn't need to be done, leaving us with no scoring wingers whatsoever.

Part of the reason I was fine with the Hall/Larsson trade was because I knew we would have to suck down a bad trade sooner or later and with the Oilers rise that season we wouldn't have to keep stomaching bad trades.

I was wrong.

Click to expand...

I agree 1000% with this. I expected a rash trade coming up because Chiarelli wanted to shake the core. And ive seen "bad" trades leave the losing team better in the end because it woke players up and caused a culture shift (its rare but happens). So I was in a weird sense ok with losing a big trade slightly as I had resigned myself to expect it. We just drafted McDavid and had a poor season (although Mcdavid was injured for most of it). But just Adam Larsson was shockingly bad even at the time. Atleast get a 2nd round pick or prospect added in. But even if it was just Hall for Larsson, I could have lived with that. I like Larsson, I like Larsson and Klefbom together. Its the best outcome of a bad trade

But the Reinhart and Eberle trades. What... the ... fuuu. The Eberle trade is inexcusable as we JUST had a winning season, had NO cap concerns and had no reason to deal him at that time. Worse off is that we were dealing with a desperate NYI team and they hoodwicked us again. They did it when we were vulnerable with G Reinhart, and they did it when they were vulnerable

Trading Hall for Larsson is like trading a Corvette for a F150, but the truck is still new and good. Eberle for Strome is like trading a 2016 Acura for a 2006 Acura with mechanical issues. And the Reinhart trade is like giving the used car salesperson $75,000 for a lemon that explicitly says "this car is not good and worth $1,000" on it

Strome is an overpaid 3C, Kharia is a 4th line winger and Cagguila is a sub-replacement level NHL winger. The real strength of the Oilers C depth is the top three players in that list. If we had enough wingers to run them 1-2-3, we'd be laughing. As it is, we have to have one playing with 97 and that leaves the other to play with plugs.

Click to expand...

Strome's a good 3C. Constant negativity aside I'll look at the bright side of your post.

I like Sekera a ton and if he can get back to normal, that would be huge. I don't have high expectations in that regard given his age and injury. As for Russell he's a bottom pairing D man who is fine in that role, but grossly overpaid. Looch's contract is probably the worst of the bunch.

Click to expand...

Of course you don't have high expectations. That's the most negativity interpretation of the situation. Sek beauty is just 31. Far, far from old to the point where you wouldn't expect full recovery from an ACL tear. I'll agree they rushed him back a little early. People complain about the Russell contract because it might be bad in the future. He earned his money last season, he's fine as a 4D and performed decently in the 3D role.

Looch? Well he's just fortunate the NHL has guaranteed contracts. Again, I agree that's one problematic NMC contract. But the only one.

Strome's a good 3C. Constant negativity aside I'll look at the bright side of your post.

Rattie performed well in the 1RW role. Competition for the role is fine. Words like "poison" are more of that unnecessary negativity and nothing more.

This is a thread about Chiarelli's performance as a GM. Comparing him to other GMs and the work they have done is absolutely relevant.

Of course you don't have high expectations. That's the most negativity interpretation of the situation. Sek beauty is just 31. Far, far from old to the point where you wouldn't expect full recovery from an ACL tear. I'll agree they rushed him back a little early. People complain about the Russell contract because it might be bad in the future. He earned his money last season, he's fine as a 4D and performed decently in the 3D role.

Looch? Well he's just fortunate the NHL has guaranteed contracts. Again, I agree that's one problematic NMC contract. But the only one.

Click to expand...

Strome is a marginal, barely passable 3c. Hes not a good 3c. A good 3c impacts the game in a positive way. Strome does not impact the game in a positive or negative way. He just...exists. "Good" is a stretch

Rattie performed well for what? 5 games? Remember when Slepyshev preformed good in the top 6 for short stretches, or Khaira or [insert numerous players over the years].

Chiarelli has been here for a relatively short time, so its a bit hard to compare him to other GMs and there level of NMCs since they were there longer. In Chiarellis short tenure here hes signed 4 NMCs. He signed likely around 7 total players eligible for NMCs (Ie, not coming off ELCs, and not totally journey man NHLers). The only players he didnt give a NMC to was Kassian and Jokinen- both nearly fit into the "journey-man" category. So it is very, very ampt to say Chiarelli gives out alot of NTC/NMC because a majority of his signings, and all of his noteable ones, get NMC

Not only does he give out a fair number of NMC in a short period, he gives them to players who dont need it because there is no way a team would be inclined to trade for that player in the future. Lucic at 6m is bad, for 6 years is horrible and with a NMC is overkill. Russell at 4 mil is laughable, for 4 years in a bad idea, and with a NMC is plain stupidity. These guys are likely laughing their ass off they robbed Chiarelli for so much money, they didnt need a NMC to induce them to sign on top of that

Looch? Well he's just fortunate the NHL has guaranteed contracts. Again, I agree that's one problematic NMC contract. But the only one.

Click to expand...

By problematic do you mean "the worst contract in the NHL?". Because Russells is absolutely problematic even if it is not in the bottom 5 contracts in the NHL. Do you think an NHL team is going to give positive value for a older #4 D making 4 million for medium term? In todays NHl you can find this type of player on the waiver wire for 1.5 mil or can have prospects take that ice time and develop. The worse thing about this NMC is that unfortuantly it will cause TM is overplay him to try and justify the contract or kick start him to hope to get anywhere near 4mil of value from him

Rattie performed well in the 1RW role. Competition for the role is fine. Words like "poison" are more of that unnecessary negativity and nothing more.

Click to expand...

Rattie was fine in a microscopic sample size. Point is there are no proven options for the top 6 RW role and big question marks on the other side.

This is a thread about Chiarelli's performance as a GM. Comparing him to other GMs and the work they have done is absolutely relevant.

Click to expand...

We were talking specifically about the Oilers and the implications of their problematic deals to their ability to improve so other GM''s propensity to hand out NMCs/NTCs is not relevant in this context.

Of course you don't have high expectations. That's the most negativity interpretation of the situation. Sek beauty is just 31. Far, far from old to the point where you wouldn't expect full recovery from an ACL tear.

Click to expand...

He'll be 32 at the start of the season. That's old by hockey player standards. It's possible he bounces back, but it's just as likely (perhaps moreso) that he doesn't.

People complain about the Russell contract because it might be bad in the future. He earned his money last season, he's fine as a 4D and performed decently in the 3D role.

Click to expand...

He was fine when he started the year as a 5D and fell apart when moved up the lineup. $4M for three more years is too much money for a bottom pairing D man, especially on a team as cap-strapped as the Oilers.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that these three contracts to aging vets are currently fair value or not, the fact is none of these players are likely to play a part in any future success and all have deals that are structured in a way that makes dumping them unnecessarily difficult. That's bad news without even factoring in the possibility of expansion rules requiring the Oilers to protect all of them at the expense of a younger, cheaper asset.

Because Russells is absolutely problematic even if it is not in the bottom 5 contracts in the NHL. Do you think an NHL team is going to give positive value for a older #4 D making 4 million for medium term? In todays NHl you can find this type of player on the waiver wire for 1.5 mil or can have prospects take that ice time and develop. The worse thing about this NMC is that unfortuantly it will cause TM is overplay him to try and justify the contract or kick start him to hope to get anywhere near 4mil of value from him

Click to expand...

Russell earned that contract last year. Anyone disputing that is bonkers. We'll see where he ends up in three years time.

$1.5m really? Who are two defencemen who were on the wire for $1.5M last season that played better than Russell? Can you name one? Davidson was making pretty close to that money, $1.425M, and hit the waiver wire. Davidson is no where near the player Russell is. That's your comparable at that money. Again, hyperbole only makes your argument weaker.

So McLellan played Lucic where he deserved to play at the end of last season, third line and fourth on occasion, despite him making $6M. But for some reason McLellan is going to 'overplay' Russell because of salary considerations. Why would a coach take salary into account with a defenceman and not a winger?

Regardless of whether or not you agree that these three contracts to aging vets are currently fair value or not, the fact is none of these players are likely to play a part in any future success and all have deals that are structured in a way that makes dumping them unnecessarily difficult. That's bad news without even factoring in the possibility of expansion rules requiring the Oilers to protect all of them at the expense of a younger, cheaper asset.

Click to expand...

This right here. Unnecessary. And makes the Oiler roster inflexible at the very minimum. With the next expansion draft looming and us not being in the luxury of having our best players on ELCs, these two contracts could cost us a pretty good player. Although Russells contract may be up by then and there could be an amesty buy out window for Lucic- both of those being best case outcomes

The NMCs were not needed regardless. Its like running into traffic and saying its fine because you havent been hit yet

We were talking specifically about the Oilers and the implications of their problematic deals to their ability to improve so other GM''s propensity to hand out NMCs/NTCs is not relevant in this context.

Click to expand...

You got the word context right. Absolutely the other NMCs/NTCs in the league count. It provides context when players are negotiating their deals.

He was fine when he started the year as a 5D and fell apart when moved up the lineup. $4M for three more years is too much money for a bottom pairing D man, especially on a team as cap-strapped as the Oilers.

Click to expand...

Russell performed decently as a 4D. His struggles came when he was asked to lead the second pairing.

Regardless of whether or not you agree that these three contracts to aging vets are currently fair value or not, the fact is none of these players are likely to play a part in any future success and all have deals that are structured in a way that makes dumping them unnecessarily difficult. That's bad news without even factoring in the possibility of expansion rules requiring the Oilers to protect all of them at the expense of a younger, cheaper asset.

Click to expand...

Even if Russell and Sekera end up lower in the lineup than you think there salaries warrant that doesn't mean they will not be part of a successful team. Sekera was a solid piece in the 2016-17 playoff run.